4chan_parliamentfandomcom-20200214-history
Rulings of the Supreme Court
As per Article V, Section II of the Constitution, the Supreme Court must review and rule passed Motions from the Assembly as Constitutional before the Motions become ratified. Below is an updating list of Supreme Court rulings on the various Motions passed by the Assembly. Session, 19 December 2018 * On the Motion "Pass the ﻿Act for the Management of Emergencies, Wars and Raids, and the Organization and Establishment of the Armed Forces of the 4chan Assembly", proposed by Avgvstvs, the Supreme Court ruled 4-0 that the Motion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ** Majority Opinion (Written by Justice Publius): Motion is deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the powers vested in the two generals prescribed by the Motion, as well as the organization and structure of the Army, conflicts with the Chancellor's power of ultimate organizational command of all raids, as per Article IV, Section V of the Constitution. Session, 15 December 2018 *On the Motion "Making the position of Commander-In-Chief held by the Kaiser, in his absence the Viceregent, and give them the power to appoint the Chief of High Command.", proposed by AnonLogic, the Supreme Court ruled 3-0 that the Motion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. **Majority Opinion (Written by Justice Jezza Corbachev): Motion deemed as UNCONSTITUTIONAL due to the Chancellor needing to have exact powers of the Kaiser, and having been ignored in this bill. as well as the Chancellor has the ability to organize raids which however vague would interfere with this bill as well, as its similar but not exact. *On the Motion "Proposal that AMs who show up for session after roll call should be counted for and allowed to vote in any motions considered after their arrival (i.e. they can vote on anything that wasn't already in progress by the time they came in).", proposed by Publius, the Supreme Court ruled 3-0 that the Motion is CONSTITUTIONAL. **Majority Opinion (Written by Justice Publius): Motion is deemed CONSTITUTIONAL because the Constitution gives no specification as to the manner by which roll calls are carried out; hence, it is entirely within the Assembly's power to modify session attendance procedure. *On the Motion "Require that the Registrar General make account of all motions and number/classify them accordingly into the category of motion in which they fall into.", proposed by AnonLogic, the Supreme Court ruled 4-0 that the Motion is CONSTITUTIONAL. **Majority Opinion (Written by Justice Publius): Motion is deemed CONSTITUTIONAL because the Constitution does not prescribe the documentation of Assembly motions to any specific role; thus, the Assembly has the right to delegate said responsibilities to the Registrar General. The Court does wish to mention, as an aside, that it feels the responsibilities concerned are better suited for the President than the Registrar General. *On the Motion "Establish a Rules Committee, which is to be made up of 5 members of the Assembly, to control debate and bill amendment settings, so as to provide a less cluttered form of debate and voting on bills. Additionally, this rules committee shall have one Chair, and its members shall be appointed upon the Consensus of the Majority and the President.", proposed by AnonLogic, the Supreme Court ruled 3-0 that the Motion is CONSTITUTIONAL. **Majority Opinion (Written by Justice Publius): Motion is deemed CONSTITUTIONAL because the Constitution gives no specification as to the manner by which the Assembly conducts its legislative business, only that the President is responsible for organization and order in Assembly business. *On the Motion "Approve the following members to the Rules Committee. NaLib(National Liberal)!!GII1hPzfQ2e, AnonLogic, RubberMeal (INP) !!ZqlaDBgHayD, Jezza Corbachev.", proposed by ______, the Supreme Court ruled 3-0 that the Motion is CONSTITUTIONAL. **Majority Opinion (Written by Justice Publius): Motion is deemed CONSTITUTIONAL because the voting procedure was done in accordance with the Constitution. I would like to add, as an aside, that future election and appointment motions should be considered distinct from motions, and thus not require judicial review by the Court.